JOINT COMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS díospóireacht -
Tuesday, 29 Jun 2010

Research, Innovation and Science Portfolio and EU 2020 Strategy: Discussion with European Commissioner

Chairman

I welcome Commissioner Máire Geoghegan-Quinn back to this House where she spent many years and distinguished herself in her time here. I have no doubt she will distinguish herself in her present portfolio.

We are particularly anxious to discuss with you today issues that now face Europe in the context of the worldwide recession, and the recession that affects this country. We have made a submission to the EU 2020 strategy which has been acknowledged. We also anticipate the major role that the science, innovation and technology sector — the commissioner's portfolio — will play in our economic recovery and its importance. It is in that context that we invited the Commissioner and are delighted she is able to be with us.

I draw everybody's attention to the request to ensure that their mobile phones are switched off and to the privilege notice I must read, that applies to witnesses. By virtue of section 17(2)(l) of the Defamation Act 2009, they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the committee. If they are directed by the committee to cease giving evidence in relation to a particular matter and they continue to so do, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and are asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise nor make charges against any person or persons or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. I have no doubt the Commissioner has heard that many times before. I welcome her again and ask her to make the usual presentation taking as long as she wishes, although it is normally up to 15 minutes, followed by a question and answer session.

Ms Máire Geoghegan-Quinn

Go raibh maith agat, a Chathaorligh agus a dhaoine uaisle. Is mór an pléisiúr dom, agus onóir, a bheith ar ais san Oireachtas, áit inar chaith mé 25 bliain agus tá súil agam go mbeidh díospóireacht oscailte láidir againn anseo tráthnóna.

Political dialogue between the Oireachtas and the European Commission should become a regular feature at all levels. These are testing times for Ireland. Families and communities across the country are feeling the effects of the recession but I am confident that Ireland will recover. We have experienced many difficult periods in our history — periods much more difficult than this one. We have always emerged strengthened from these periods and I am sure that it will be the same this time.

I am not alone in this view. Recently Dr. Rabini, one of the few economists who predicted the crisis, said he saw light at the end of the tunnel for Ireland and there are already signs of improvement. As members will know, the OECD and Commission forecast 3% growth in 2011, double the euro zone average.

Most agree that the Irish government is taking the right steps to address the situation, painful though those steps might be. Despite its difficulties Ireland has a flexible entrepreneurial and dynamic economy. My faith is founded in the nature of the Irish people. They have all the characteristics needed to build a smart economy. Ireland must now harness the talents of its people to drive entrepreneurship and innovation. If it can do this, I have no doubt that it will be successful.

The European Union is there to support Irish recovery. The European Commission has lost no time in getting down to business. We were nominated on 29 November last year, and following confirmation hearings in the European Parliament, we took up office on 15 February. Our proposal for the Europe 2020 Strategy appeared just over a month later and two weeks ago European leaders gave it their full endorsement. The strategy aims to strengthen economic governance. At the moment EU co-ordination occurs once national budgets have already been set. Under the new plans it would happen much earlier, at the planning stage. This is controversial but it is necessary to avoid a repeat of the recent difficulties in the euro zone.

Europe 2020 is an ambitious, transformational agenda, designed to turn Europe into a smart, sustainable and socially inclusive market economy. At the core of the Europe 2020 Strategy is the creation of cleaner, greener and smarter jobs. We must innovate quickly if we are to create and maintain jobs and remain competitive. With budgets being cut across Europe, and unemployment at crisis levels, we desperately need new private sector growth. This growth will not come from the same sectors as before so we need to identify new growth sectors and start investing in them right away.

Innovation, as the report from the committee on Europe 2020 points out, is one of the best ways of delivering the new sources of growth we need. That is why, of the seven flagships around which Europe 2020 is built, the innovation union for which I have responsibility, is one of the most important. I know from political experience that widespread consultation is the key to developing any successful policy initiative. That is why, on top of a formal consultation procedure in accordance with European Commission rules, I have also talked to a wide range of organisations from the social, business, investment and voluntary sectors seeking their advice on what should be included in the innovation union. I have consulted with a variety of different EU governments on its contents. I welcome, in this context, the report of the task force on innovation commissioned by the Government and published last March.

Over the past two weeks, I have met representatives from political groups in the European Parliament. Today is a useful opportunity to exchange views, particularly since the Lisbon treaty gives national parliaments a stronger role in the legislative process within the European Union.

I want the strategy to have an impact on the well-being of each person living in the European Union. It will be about creating new jobs and protecting and sustaining existing jobs. It will target all of our resources and policy instruments on the really big challenges we face, such as fighting climate change, using scarce resources more efficiently or caring for our aging population. With resources so scarce we must focus this strategy on issues that people really care about such as more jobs, an improved quality of living and a better society.

The strategy will be based on one central political idea, the need to develop a European approach to innovation. Europe 2020 is about building a smart, sustainable and inclusive economy. The strategy must reflect this. It must also make maximum use of our strong public sector. The public services of the European Union can and must be major drivers of innovation.

The strategy is still a work in progress but it will be divided into three sections. First, the basic building blocks of innovation such as better science teaching in our schools. We need a total rethink of education with less focus on learning by rote and more on the soft skills of creativity, organising work independently and working in teams. People need to learn to learn. EU competences are limited in this area but I want us to add value where we can. I am talking about more excellent universities, more graduates in science, technology, engineering and maths and a higher level of attainment in these subjects. I intend to work closely with my colleague, Androulla Vassiliou, who is the European Commissioner with responsibility for education and culture concerning these very issues.

We also must strengthen our science base and ensure that it is internationally competitive. That is the reason we must have a single, unified research area in Europe within which researchers and knowledge can move around freely. I want to remove, once and for all, the pension and social security obstacles that prevent researchers from moving freely between countries. Furthermore, we must make the best possible use of European level funding instruments, including the EU framework programme for research.

Under the seventh Framework Programme 2007-2013, Irish companies have drawn down €213 million between January 2007 and April 2010. This means that Irish third level institutions, private companies, research centres and state organisations are drawing down more than €1 million a week under this EU research fund, better known by the acronym FP7. We soon will start working out our key priorities under what will be the next research framework programme of the European Union for the period from 2014 to 2020. I already have started to cut red tape in research funding but I intend to go much further under the new programme. I want researchers to spend more time in the lab and less time in the office. I will explore how we can improve the participation levels of small and medium-sized enterprises within the framework programme. Above all, I want to turn the framework programme into an instrument of innovation.

We already have a number of public private partnerships in areas such as fuel cells and hydrogen, which potentially can replace petrol in cars. Another public private partnership, the Clean Sky initiative, is developing the next generation of environmentally-friendly aircraft. I am confident that more public private partnerships will be launched under my political mandate. I also want more of the 4,000 third level institutions in the EU to collaborate with industry and to do so in an EU-27 context. This is a top priority both for me and for my boss, President Barroso.

This brings me to my next point, namely, the second section in the strategy on the need to promote productive entrepreneurship. Europe has a large and excellent knowledge base. It is the largest producer of scientific publications. However, we are not good enough at transforming our inventions into commercial successes. While the best known example is the MP3 standard for compressing audio data, which was invented in Europe but commercialised in the United States, there are many more. This must change. I am determined to eliminate all the bottlenecks in the innovation process. I want to innovation-proof our regulations, expand funding for innovation, speed up the development of open and interoperable standards and achieve agreement at last on the Community patent, which is so important for our SMEs. In short, I want to deliver a fully functioning single market for innovation. My colleague, the Commissioner for Internal Market and Services, Michel Barnier, also fully supports this objective. We must have a common set of actions and political priorities and the level of ambition will be high.

The third part of the strategy will be the most important because we do not just want more innovation; we want the right kind of innovation. As I stated previously, we need to concentrate our resources in the areas about which our citizens care most. To achieve this, I intend to launch a small number of highly targeted innovation partnerships. These will be launched in areas where a clear and measurable goal can be defined, such as adding two years of healthy life by 2020, and which bears a direct link to a societal challenge, such as population aging in this case. The partnerships will provide a framework for pooling resources and bringing together all key actors, as well as relevant policies and instruments on both the supply and the demand side and at European and national levels. They will be innovation short-circuits that will speed up breakthroughs and make sure they are rapidly deployed.

I feel very strongly about this idea. During a recent trip to the United States, I saw just how determined are the Americans to make progress in these key strategic areas. They are determined to unleash a clean energy revolution, especially since the oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. We must have a similarly strategic approach in Europe and we must co-operate with our international partners to achieve our agreed political goals. The partnerships cannot succeed without the support of the member states. Indeed, we need massive political buy-in by the Heads of State and Government. I hope very much that the Oireachtas will throw its weight behind this ground-breaking new idea. We know what our political objectives are, so let us go and achieve them with a sense of unity, determination and purpose.

Chairman

I thank the Commissioner. As a number of members wish to contribute, I will try to accommodate everyone. I wish to give the Senators a chance to speak early because they must leave for the Order of Business. Deputy Timmins was the first member to indicate.

Deputy Billy Timmins

If the Chairman prefers, he should allow the Senators go ahead first.

Senator Mark Dearey

The Commissioner is welcome and it was good to hear her speech, which was full of strong aspiration, as well as plans to get there. Obviously, it was not mere aspiration. I wish to ask the Commissioner a number of questions on climate change and how she envisages that the challenge of climate change will drive innovation. The Stern report was commissioned by the United Kingdom's Government, essentially to examine the economic costs of climate change. Its conclusion was that climate change was the greatest market failure in history simply because the cost of carbon was being externalised rather than being counted in any product or service that was being delivered. In the Commissioner's view, is Europe beginning to internalise the cost of carbon, thereby creating the behavioural change that will be needed to meet the highly ambitious challenge of reducing carbon emissions by 80% by 2050? While Ireland has taken a lead in respect of one instrument, that is, the carbon levy, what is happening with regard to the innovation platform about taking carbon into account?

My second question pertains to the subject of flexibility and ability within research and whether the Commissioner can see ways in which that her commissionership can lead to greater flexibility on this island with regard to research and innovation. The Border still is far too big an obstacle on a small island on which we aspire towards a single economy in many respects and this must be addressed. For example, cross-Border development zones need to be considered, where accelerated reliefs pertaining to research can be provided. Are such initiatives being considered along the borders of Europe?

Senator Terry Leyden

I welcome the Commissioner, Ms Máire Geoghegan-Quinn, and thank her for her attendance. It has been the first appearance before the joint committee by a Commissioner for some time. I congratulate her on her appointment, which was inspired, given her previous experience in Ireland in different Governments. I recall approaching her as a Deputy, when I always found her to be knowledgeable about her brief and to be decisive. This is exactly the mode she is in at present, which is the reason her speech was very enlightening and encouraging. She mentioned the subject of fuel cells and hydrogen, which is an extremely interesting area that is being examined by a number of people. However, I am aware of one potential inventor who has been given the run-around in this State between Enterprise Ireland and the relevant Departments.

I hope the Commissioner will adopt a hands-on approach to the 27 member states within her remit and that she might provide such leadership to all the Departments that were involved. She should indicate to them exactly what are her policies and that they would cut the red tape to which the Commissioner referred and really examine proposals with an open mind. For example, the aforementioned young inventor working in the hydrogen field has come up against closed minds expressing the view that he cannot come up with something new and that it neither can nor will work. Past reasoning should go out the window and everything should be looked at afresh.

As for alternative energy, the development of sources such as wave power is absolutely vital. I read somewhere yesterday that we could be exporting energy from Ireland. From the Commissioner's personal acquaintance with the west coast, she is aware of the possibilities of having harbour connections and wind power there. I appreciate that these matters are uppermost in the Commissioner's consideration. She is in the early stages of her tenure, but she has responsibility for sustainable energy, which is the most important of portfolios, given that the sustainable jobs it will create are badly needed. I wish her well. She will meet with significant success.

Chairman

I have asked that the Commissioner's speech be circulated to the press Gallery.

Senator Feargal Quinn

I welcome the Commissioner and we are delighted to have her on board. I also welcome her words and enthusiasm. Those in government, be it at European or national level, believe that the creation of jobs is their responsibility, but I disagree. Their responsibility is to create the environment in which enterprise can creates jobs.

Senator Mark Dearey

Hear, hear.

Senator Feargal Quinn

Some 20 or more years ago, I was chairman of a hospital that received letters every month asking how many new nursing and porter jobs we had created. This is what caused the problem — the Government believed that the State should have been creating jobs. By creating jobs that were not viable, the difficulties we were in increased. I met Ms Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labour in the previous US Administration. She told me that her role was not to create jobs, but to create the environment in which enterprise can create jobs. This is the message I would like to get across.

Recently, I read a book about Israel entitled, Start-Up Nation. I have it with me. It is fascinating that the number of start-up companies in Israel is greater than the number of MEPs. The highest density of start-ups is in the venture capital investment sector. Whatever Israel is doing, it has managed to encourage people to create businesses and be innovative. I love that the Commissioner’s job title includes the word “innovation”. One of her tasks is ensuring that we remove the barriers to entrepreneurship.

That we have been discussing the need for more controls and regulation in recent times is understandable, but each time we introduce regulations, we are in danger of stifling enthusiasm, entrepreneurship and the number of start-ups. Our work should be in this regard. I encourage the Commissioner. Her words were worthwhile but, if the jobs we create are not profitable, we must not assume they will be viable. We must encourage start-ups and entrepreneurs and remove barriers. Given the Commissioner's words, she is going in the right direction. Let us encourage her to continue.

Deputy Billy Timmins

I wish the new Commissioner well in her appointment, but I have a few questions. A Commissioner designate should be in an understudy position for six months or have a greater lead-in period instead of entering the job at the last minute. Does the Commissioner have an opinion on this suggestion? It is something in which I strongly believe.

The Commissioner referred to the budgetary oversight permitted under Article 156 or some other article of the Lisbon treaty. Are there future treaty implications? It was mooted at the time that there wold be, but I do not believe there are any.

The Commissioner referred to her position on the concept of an innovation research culture and targeted innovation projects. Is the one size fits all approach to innovation feasible across the EU? Is it not the case that different nationalities have different strengths? Instead of a flat-rate policy, would it not be better to have a targeted policy? Some years ago, I attended a lecture given by Mr. Danny McCoy, then of the ESRI and now with IBEC. I am not saying that I concur with his sentiment, but he discussed facing up to the reality that the Irish do not have a strength in the sciences. He suggested that we leave that area to other nationalities and instead concentrate on our strengths, such as entrepreneurship. Does the Commissioner have an opinion in this regard?

The Commissioner referred to how, under the seventh framework programme from 2007 to 2013, Irish companies drew down €213 million between 2007 to 2010, representing approximately €1 million per week. Do we know how our figures compare with those of other EU countries? If the statistic is not available now, perhaps it could be in future.

Deputy Michael Mulcahy

I join with the Chairman and members in warmly welcoming the Commissioner back to the Houses where she served for so many years. I thank her for her contribution, with all of which I am in agreement. I will focus on one matter. The Commissioner stated:

Europe has a large and excellent knowledge base. It is the largest producer of scientific publications. But we are not good enough at transforming our inventions into commercial successes.

I agree with this statement. Europe's scientific heritage is second to none. Other civilisations have had inventions, breakthroughs and so on, but the sheer volume of inventions and the scientific knowledge built up in Europe are second to none. Universities and commercial companies from all over the world poach European undergraduates and postgraduates, given how much talent we have. As the Commissioner rightly pointed out, though, our talents do not necessarily translate into commercial success.

We had the Lisbon Agenda before the Commissioner assumed her post, although it is known to her. The agenda's ambitious targets were to transform Europe into a dynamic, innovative union, eradicate unemployment, etc. In reality, it did not succeed. Throughout Europe, there is still large-scale unemployment. This does not necessarily have a direct bearing on the Commissioner's portfolio and business policy is a factor, but a large segment of her jurisdiction is relevant to the question on why we are not translating Europe's intellectual brilliance, heritage and invention into commercial successes. She should examine the matters of bureaucracy, state regulation and state monopolies, of which Europe still has many, all of which hinder enterprise. With the increase in European technical bureaucracy, entering the marketplace might be more difficult for small firms. I urge the Commissioner to undertake a co-ordinated approach with the relevant Commissioners to aid the translation of invention into commercial success. We must be honest, in that the Lisbon Agenda was not a success. The Commissioner's success and that of her colleagues will primarily be judged on job creation, which is a significant challenge across many European countries. I warmly welcome the Commissioner's contribution.

Deputy Lucinda Creighton

I extend my welcome to the Commissioner and congratulate her on her appointment. Today's opportunity for an exchange with her is useful and timely for the committee, given that we are moving into a new phase through the EU 2020 strategy, which sets out a new course for innovation and job creation. I agree with Deputy Mulcahy on the Lisbon strategy, which was disappointing and a dismal failure in terms of the objectives it set out to achieve. The targets and ambitions set in the Lisbon strategy were vague, broad and general. One sees this in the language used, where the target was to be the most innovative and successful part of the globe in job creation. The document was scant on specifics and the stepping stones to achieve the targets. I hope we do not fall into the same trap with regard to the EU 2020 strategy.

The open method of co-ordination was the centrepiece of the Lisbon strategy. This was one of the fundamental failures because it was full of generalities and short on specific targets. Also, the decisions taken under the Lisbon strategy and the open method of co-ordination were not binding. Monitoring and compliance was left to the member states. There was no mechanism to ensure member states stepped up to the plate. Does the Commissioner have suggestions or an insight into how this will change dramatically under the new strategy? It must fundamentally change.

I agree with the point made by Senator Feargal Quinn. The task of the Government is not to create jobs but to create the conditions for job creation and entrepreneurship. That is a simple but important concept we must all acknowledge. Does the Commissioner see a role for the EU in trying to get a handle on the public sector across the EU, streamlining the public sector and reducing it while making it more responsive, flexible and appropriate to the targets and conditions we must meet in Europe and in each member state? Can this happen with guidance from the EU or must it happen within each member state?

I am interested to hear the views of Ms Geoghegan-Quinn as a newly-appointed Commissioner. Ireland secured a concession after the rejection of the Lisbon treaty referendum to retain a commissioner for every member state. From the Commissioner's short experience of the European Commission to date, is that a good thing? Are there too many commissioners? Would we benefit from a smaller European Commission and a rotating Commission as originally envisaged? Has the correct approach been adopted?

Chairman

Deputies Flynn, Costello, Dooley, O'Rourke and Breen will be called in that order.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

I welcome the Commissioner and wish her every success in her portfolio. It is undoubtedly important for the EU and Ireland. In her opening remarks in January, the Commissioner spoke about the disconnect between science and society and how important it is to bring society with us in regard to innovation and to gain support for research in the EU. I am interested in innovation in energy. Coming from the west of Ireland, where County Mayo is cited as a major area for wave and wind energy, part of the portfolio of the Commissioner deals with the NER300, the new entrants reserve fund. The fund amounts to €4.5 billion available throughout the EU. A number of areas covered by this fund deal with mountainous terrain and forests. However, peatlands are excluded. The area the Commissioner and I are familiar with is covered with peatlands and many of those involved in innovation are focusing on this area. I ask for the support of the Commissioner so that peatlands are included in this fund and that, ultimately, Ireland is successful in that area when it comes to drawing down a portion of the €4.5 billion.

The Commissioner is also focused on the regulatory environment and how we can devise a creative regulatory environment for innovation that encourages rather than inhibits innovation. What steps have been taken to make this a reality?

Many of my colleagues have spoken about productive entrepreneurship. I agree with the point that we are great inventors but cannot transfer it into commercial reality. What are the practical steps and how will we move from a European Union of great creators to commercial success? Can this be brought about and can one create entrepreneurs if they do not exist in the first place? If it can be done, can this be done in three or five years? How does the Commissioner see this becoming reality?

The Commissioner made reference to FP7. While the brief of the Commissioner is European, when she addresses parliaments there will be an element of parochial questioning. She is familiar with this from her past and it comes as no surprise to her. It is impressive that we drew down €213 million between 2007 and 2010. How does that compare per capita with our European counterparts? What does that sum translate to in terms of job creation? This will be a major focus of the 2020 strategy.

Deputy Joe Costello

I also welcome our new Commissioner and I wish her every success. Her portfolio is extremely important and should be at the heart of our economic recovery and the recovery all over Europe. I compliment the Commissioner, having met at Croke Park when she launched the Lord Mayor's commission on employment, on doing such a fine job and for emphasising the role of local authorities and the public sector in creating employment and the environment for creating employment as well as the private sector.

The Commissioner mentioned that the Lisbon treaty gives national parliaments a greater role in all matters European. It is an important point for the Joint Committee on European Affairs. We are delighted this is the first committee the Commissioner has addressed in the Houses of the Oireachtas. Deputy Creighton referred to the 2020 strategy. The Lisbon strategy covered 2000 to 2010 and the 2020 strategy covers the period to 2020. The failure of the Lisbon strategy to achieve its objectives was due to the fact that no one was monitoring what went on between member states. That is the key to the 2020 strategy. What monitoring mechanism will be set up to examine what countries are doing, what co-ordination can be arranged and what advice can be given to countries lacking strength in certain areas?

The Commissioner emphasised that the education system and the educational research system are at the heart of the smart economy, sustainable development and inclusion. I refer to moving from creativity to design to products on the market and how this can be integrated. At present we are failing to make links and put mechanisms in place. Our third level colleges are not assisting us. There is limited movement in that direction and much could be done.

Regarding second level schools, not so long ago Mr. Craig Barrett of Intel said we were not doing the business in mathematics and the sciences and this must be examined. Much more needs to be examined in terms of how we get away from the rote element of education in Ireland to the creativity element. An entire revolution is needed in our education system if we are to move into the smart and sustainable economy in the near future.

Research is a critical area and we are way behind most other European countries in this respect. An average of approximately 3% of gross domestic product is spent on it and we spend less that 1.5%. At present our spend is 1.4%. We have a long way to go to catch up.

We have a terrible problem in this country with financing small and medium enterprises. Most products are worked on and placed on the commercial markets by small companies. Existing and new companies have huge difficulties obtaining a credit line at present. Framework Programme 7 is moving in that direction but we have a bottleneck in education, research and small industry that we need to deal with before we will be able to innovate properly.

One of the tests of success or otherwise will be how we deal with climate change and carbon emissions. If we do not live up to the other 2020 targets for carbon reduction and we go for credits or dumping some of our carbon, we will have failed. Of all countries, we have an opportunity to move to wind, water and tide energy and other mechanisms to create new, smart, clean and sustainable energy.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

I welcome Commissioner Geoghegan-Quinn and her team. I am delighted to see her appear before the committee. The paper she presented is thoughtful and interesting. It clearly shows she is on top of her brief and ready to take on the challenge that this posting sets for her. It is very clear, and has been from the start, that the Commissioner has a good grasp of what is involved. The biggest challenge is involvement in trying to deal in some way with the unemployment crisis throughout Europe. The Commissioner is at the heart of that in the innovation portfolio. The identification of some of the issues she brought to our attention clearly shows she is taking a fresh approach and that is very welcome.

I am taken by the Commissioner's comments on education. It is clear that as a former educationalist she is not prepared to accept the status quo and that she wants to shake up the area. I suggest some thought be given to a model or system of education which is reasonably prolific throughout Germany, which is the Steiner-Waldorf method. I am familiar with two schools in Clare which have received temporary recognition. Having discussed it with people involved, it seems to be a very good system, not for everyone, but it certainly helps to develop in a holistic way along the lines discussed the creative side of a child at an early stage rather than using the rote method with which we have all become familiar. There is an interesting dynamic there.

The Commissioner spoke about the link between education and entrepreneurship. This is hugely important and for far too long the model of education did not look towards developing entrepreneurial skill. In many cases, people's educational attainment gave them a sense of security rather than looking to their inner strengths and skills for survival, which people did in other times. More than anything, this has helped to retard the entrepreneurial side of many people. The commentary on the approach being taken by the Commission on education can be expanded.

Framework Programme 7 is very important and we have done relatively well. We need to do better and there needs to be involvement by IDA Ireland, Enterprise Ireland and Shannon Development, and I am sure there is. I am aware that Shannon Development identified the Shannon Estuary as a green zone to develop early stage technologies and pilot projects, utilising and identifying areas that Deputy Flynn spoke about, whether they be in emerging wind, wave and tidal technologies. The research funding mentioned by the Commissioner would be very helpful. The difficulty is with identifying those technologies and the people with ideas. I agree with Deputy Creighton and Senator Quinn that it is not the role of either the Commissioner or the Government to create jobs or ideas; it is the framework. This is why it is so important that the Commissioner goes back to base levels and deals with it at the first educational level rather than trying to do it later in people's lives.

As the Commissioner is here representing the Commission, I have a number of peripheral points. There is an interesting article in The New York Times today on some of the decisions of the G20 on halving deficits between now and 2013. It states that while austerity is good at a certain level, it does not necessarily work best where it is done in unison. If everyone is cutting back there is an inability for others to move forward. As a Government and a country we have believed our capacity to grow and recover here is based on our capacity to export. Most of our growth potential is in that area. Is the Commissioner concerned that if everyone else cuts back it will have an impact on our capacity to grow?

The Commissioner may not wish to deal with my next point and if she does not that is fine. It relates to the European Union, Israel and Gaza. The committee is having discussions on this matter and we have had hearings on it. For far too long we have accepted that the resolution of the Israel-Gaza issue is being left to the United States. This is a pity considering the near proximity to our borders and the existence of the Euromed neighbourhood agreement between Israel and the European Union. We have recognised that there have been abuses of human rights by Israel. I would have thought that would have had a significant impact on the relationship between the European Union and Israel. Any comments the Commissioner wishes to make on this would be helpful. I wish the Commissioner well.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

I also welcome the Commissioner. I am very interested in what she has had to say today at the committee and in the document circulated to the committee. I commend very much her emphasis on education. I do not know how she will change it. As we all know, as we are either the products or conveyors of it, to change anything in education is huge. I do not know how the ship of what used to happen and should continue to happen with regard to science can be turned around. However, it is the kernel and at the root of what the Commissioner professes to want to do, and I know she means it.

The Commissioner stated she wants the strategy to have an impact on the well-being of every person living in the European Union. That is a very simple but noble and provocative aspiration. If the Commissioner is to have it, and I believe she is, she must tackle the in-built resistance to science as a subject in second level schools or in some way make it more attractive. I still know young people. I meet mothers and fathers who say a child will not do science because it is too difficult.

The Commissioner stated she has to address the increasing disconnect between science and society, and that is so. People talking about science regard it as something out there but which has nothing to do with them or everyday life. They believe it only concerns people who are frightfully intelligent and clever, with approximately ten university degrees after their names, and it has nothing to do with people's everyday life.

I do not know how this idea could be pierced but it must be done. The Commissioner mentioned that science must belong in society, which is correct, but that is not currently the case. I am speaking as an arts graduate and I never touched on science, although I read about it now. I never studied it as a subject and I greatly regret that there is a swathe of learning and life into which I have not put my mind to work. If that can be done in education it would be beneficial.

There is an issue regarding commercialisation of what we do in research. My eyes pop out at the millions of euro being put into research, despite cutbacks in all sorts of other areas. The research budget has been kept going and I have a vision of earnest people in labs, wearing glasses looking at things. What comes out of that? Is there anything of value to the world in commercial terms that would come from these billions of euro? I hope so. We have heard of and welcome health research, and we can read about the latest move forward in a particular type of cancer treatment, for example. Such work is well done.

Education and science should be part of an everyday language rather than something which is incomprehensible and not the language of everyday people. Deputy Flynn and I were discussing how the witness said she wanted to empower women. I do not know if that was a general remark in a global sense or if it is a specific aim. She stated "the research workplace needs to evolve to empower more women to play their part in science", and that is true. In classrooms girls did not take up science but took on the safe arts subjects before going on to be teachers and good little citizens. This did not lead to more empowerment so I would like to know how a role can be played in that regard.

The witness also spoke of innovative partnerships. Perhaps such a partnership could come about with some schools at second level which are prepared to be bold, courageous and innovative in tackling the teaching of science, and a cluster of schools within an area could be formed. I could suggest County Westmeath, although that might not find favour.

Deputy Timmy Dooley

The Deputy is in first anyway.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

It would be a good idea to have a cluster of schools prepared to be bold and innovative and seek to empower female students in the science area. I have great hopes for Ms Geoghegan-Quinn in the job as she is prepared to work and take action. In general, women are more prepared to act. I apologise to the Chairman for that.

Chairman

I will not take it personally.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

If the Chairman were a woman I would say the same thing.

Senator Ann Ormonde

I am not a member of the committee but I wanted to formally congratulate the Commissioner and wish her every success in her new role. I have no doubt, going on her record to date, she will turn it into a success.

Many points have been raised and I would have mentioned many of the issues commented on by Deputy O'Rourke, particularly with regard to education. The Commissioner used the phrase "learning to learn", which is a very good concept meaning we must be able to think rather than continue with rote learning. We must consider how best to take a concept and turn it into our own. We are not good at that in Ireland and although we are quite good at talking, we do not stand back and do our own thinking. I like the Commissioner's idea and am anxious for her to pursue it.

She also spoke about creating links with third level institutions and the business world, which is well overdue. We have become too academic in the past number of years and have not been practical in turning academic qualifications into a success story. The Commissioner spoke about transforming our inventions into commercial successes and I agree on the point. There is so much red tape, bottlenecks and other blockages facing a young person with an idea and initiative who wants to start a company. Before they can go anywhere they find red tape in the way we do our work in the Civil Service and the various Departments. We would do a great job if this could be reduced in order to speed up the process for young people who are blocked half way and lose their initiative. If the Commissioner can help in this respect she would be doing a very successful job for the country. I thank her for coming before us today.

Deputy Pat Breen

I apologise to the Commissioner for being a little late but she must have brought a big entourage to the front gates because I could not get in. She is clearly very popular.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

Rise and follow Máire.

Deputy Pat Breen

She said in the past that her job is to try to create the conditions for a more dynamic Europe, where people can do business and where talented people want to live and work. It is an important statement and the research and innovation strategy is being published in September before the autumn meeting of the EU Council.

In her contribution the Commissioner indicated the strategy will focus on many challenges facing Europe, particularly relating to education, climate change, energy efficiency and health and ageing. My colleague, Deputy Dooley, mentioned the Shannon Estuary and Deputy O'Rourke was begging for Athlone but will the Commissioner's strategy focus on the regional strengths of countries, which are very important? Many of the regions have significant strengths, particularly in development of alternative sources of energy, which the Commissioner has said will be part of her document.

I will be begging on behalf of the Shannon Estuary and is there a possibility of developing a centre of excellence in the mid-west region? The National University of Ireland, Galway, the University of Limerick and a US institute of technology have already linked up in that area and formed an important strategic alliance so perhaps the Commissioner could focus on that.

Having said that, budgets clearly dominate. Following the publication of the strategy, will the EU back it up with supporting grants for projects? National governments have problems with budgets and research and development could easily be cut back. We must learn from Finland, which put significant funding into research and development, which has paid off well for the country. I am at the end of the line so perhaps the Commissioner will deal with those issues.

Chairman

We are not quite at the end.

Deputy Seán Power

We are nearly there and I will not delay the committee too long. Like Deputy Breen I apologise for being late as I was also faced with an unexpected challenge. I welcome the Commissioner and wish her every success in her new job. It is good to see her back among us.

In her address the Commissioner mentioned the innovation process and a determination to eliminate bottlenecks. What does she see as the main bottlenecks or challenges that must be dealt with? As a Government, is there anything we can do to assist in removing those, or is she speaking specifically about European challenges?

Chairman

Deputy Tuffy.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

Would it be all right to wait until later?

Chairman

We will not have unlimited time because the Commissioner will be leaving shortly. The Deputy is free to intervene now if she wishes.

Deputy Joanna Tuffy

I am sorry I was late. I looked briefly at the Commissioner's paper. One issue I have often raised here is the importance of the European Union with regard to investment in education. It is not quite the Commissioner's brief but it is related to it. The European social funding that was provided during the 1980s was key in terms of developing our economy and it gave people skills and vocational training in third level education, particularly in our institutes of technology, while widening access to third level. When ESF funding came in for courses, that was when we first saw the widening of access to college across the different sectors of society. Many of our Institutes of Technology were built on the basis of European Union funding. In one part of her paper the Commissioner talks about more excellent universities, and later she mentions third level institutions. Much of our success is due to investment in our institutes of technology by the European Union; this should be reactivated. Does the Commissioner have any comments on this?

Chairman

I also commend the Commissioner on her opening presentation. She has correctly assessed the issues facing Europe and this country as a member of the EU. The points raised by the various speakers around the room clearly indicate that they are at one with the Commissioner on the issues. I ask pardon for being a little parochial, but various universities have been mentioned, and I must mention NUI Maynooth, where there are some very innovative and progressive people who have overcome the thorny but important challenge of transferring theory into practice.

As the committee has discussed previously, the 2020 review of the Lisbon strategy was, as members have already said, a result of the lack of a rolling monitoring system. We should not have to wait for ten years to find out that a strategy is not working effectively. It should be possible to monitor on an annual basis and identify progress or lack of it. Mention has also been made by various members of bureaucracy. There is no question about it — bureaucracy is the fastest growing industry in this country and throughout Europe. It is invasive, overpowering, consuming and debilitating, and it is growing at an alarming rate. It is quite common nowadays for Members elected to the national Parliament to be told, for example, that they cannot be given information because of the Data Protection Act, while a member of the public can get the same information under the Freedom of Information Act, which is, needless to say, annoying.

In addition, there is the question of how innovation, technology and research combined can advance the causes of existing and established industries such as the food and agricultural sector, which has been mentioned already, or the forestry, energy or pharmaceutical sectors. Medicine and education have also been referred to. The most important issue now facing us is how to apply a scientific and innovation-based approach in order to develop new methods of delivery. I include established manufacturing industry in this also; there is a tendency nowadays, as we all know from past discussions, to consider old-fashioned manufacturing industry as something we should not be involved with — something that should be left to somebody else. This is an idea with which I profoundly disagree. In the challenging times we face, every country within the European Union must capitalise on every possible aspect of job creation and innovation in order to create and sustain employment.

Ms Maire Geoghegan-Quinn

I thank the Chairman and all members for their stimulating questions and comments. This proves yet again that committees such as this have an important role to play when we start to put together policies for the future to deal with the grave issues facing us.

I might forget some of the questions but I hope notes will be passed to me as I go through them. Senator Dearey raised the issue of climate change and behavioural change as well as flexibility and mobility in the European research area. At EU level we are, as members know, implementing the 20% greenhouse gas target and we have a keen interest in providing for and pursuing sustainable growth and jobs. The 30% target is on the table as the EU's conditional offer in our negotiations. Recently, we clearly demonstrated that a 30% target was achievable, but challenges remain. One of the difficulties that arose after Copenhagen was that people, for a short period at least, lost faith and felt it had been a failure. However, this was turned on its head by this new Commission — first, by the appointment of a Commissioner with specific responsibility for climate change; and second, because of the valuable lesson learned by the EU — by which I mean the 27 member states and the Commission — that never again could we attend a climate change discussion with 27, or indeed 28, different viewpoints. We must work together, present one strategy and work with one voice to pursue it.

We have seen changes in that area and now we must concentrate on three parallel aims. First, we must begin implementing the Europe 2020 strategy, including the 20/20/20 targets, to show that we can achieve growth and reduce emissions at the same time. Second, we must work on an international consensus, which is important in terms of action. We saw this happening last week at the G8 and the G20 meetings and it must consistently be a major theme in all future summits. Third, we must prepare for Cancún. We want a positive outcome to the next discussions and we in the Commission will work on a set of balanced, concrete, action-oriented decisions. That is the only way to go.

Deputy Dearey also raised the issue of cross-Border research co-operation. The Commission is organising a seminar involving key players on both sides of the Border, plus key officials from the Commission and farther afield. It is hoped, I understand from Martin Territt, to hold this after the October European summit. It is being organised by the representation offices here in Dublin and in Belfast. This committee could become involved and be supportive of the two representation offices in this regard.

Senator Leyden mentioned fuel cells and also spoke about red tape. Research into fuel cells and hydrogen is a joint technology initiative, and is an important and cohesive area of research in terms of sustainable energy. Together with this we also have the Clean Sky project, which is developing cleaner engines for aircraft. These are all the issues we must consider and which must be married into all our policies within the Commission and the Union as a whole. We should not have, as the Senator rightly said, a closed mind with regard to any of these issues.

The issue of flexibility and mobility in research is important. I do not have specific responsibility for this in the Commission, but my colleague Commissioner Andor has specific responsibility in this area and he is a key member of the group of Commissioners working on the research and innovation strategy. He recognises, as we all do — this was raised by several members — that if we are to have a cohesive strategy that works we must provide the kind of working conditions that allow researchers and scientists to be mobile across the 27 member states. We are dealing with 27 different social security, pension and employment frameworks. Member states are now beginning to realise that researchers do not get long-term contracts of work but have to move after spending perhaps a year or 18 months in one country to a project somewhere else. They are reluctant to do that unless they have the safety net of flexi-security. Commissioner Andor is working very hard to produce a proposal in this area with the support of the 27 member states.

Senator Quinn and other members of the committee stated the Commission and Governments are not there to create jobs rather the environment for jobs. What barricades, barriers and blockages are in place that prevent all the bright ideas that exist at basic research level coming to the market place? There are factors such as standards, regulation, intellectual property in European patent, for example. The lack of venture capital is very important in all of this. When resources are scarce the venture capital people move away and go elsewhere. What are we doing in that area? All these issues will be addressed in specific parts of the strategy we will publish at the end of September. All the commissioners who have responsibility in this area are working to clear away those barriers and blockages.

On the venture capital side, a very good example has been working for several years that combines the European Investment Bank, the European Investment Fund and the Commission, namely, the risk-sharing finance facility. That provides money from the Commission and the EIB which, in turn, provides money for projects, albeit large and high-tech projects. It provides the kind of money they need to get going. In co-operation with the EIF and the EIB, I have been trying to find a similar instrument that could be directed at small and medium-sized companies. Many such come to me and say,"We can't get this money at home. We can't get it from the EIB because they are only interested in big ones". They need to get it from a source that deals with smaller companies. We have been trying to find an instrument that would be similar to the risk-sharing finance facility but would be targeted at small and medium-sized enterprises.

Deputy Timmins suggested that commissioner-designates should be in an understudy role for six months. This is a very interesting proposal and one I had not thought of. However, I can say that from the time my nomination was announced by the Government until I came into office on February 15, I felt as if I was an understudy because a great deal of work had to be done, first in the preparatory work of getting to know the portfolio and then going through the scrutiny of the European Parliament for three hours, which was not easy. It is an interesting idea. I do not know whether this would work. It may be something for the future. It would be an interesting topic to take up for the committee members and their fellow committees throughout the European Union.

In reply to the Deputy's question, there are no treaty implications. Does one size fit all? No. Neither the G20 nor the Commission ever proposed that one size fits all in the austerity policy. The recovery plan is very clear -stimulus by those who have fiscal room for manoeuvre. The specific question about one size fitting all was on the 3% research and development target. One of the biggest criticisms of the Lisbon strategy on research and development was of the 3% target which was made up of 1% from public finance and 2% from private finance. It was declared to be a failure, that we should not continue with it. I fought a big battle within the Commission to get my commissioner colleagues to agree to keep that target in the EU 2020 strategy. Why did I do that? The Ministers for research and science I met on the Competitiveness Council lobbied very strongly that it should be kept, precisely because it enabled them to fight against Ministers for finance who may have wanted to cut back on investment in research and development. In addition, even though the target was not as successful as we might have wished, during that period there was a huge increase in virtually all member states in investment in research and development. The target might not have been reached but there was a huge increase. Rightly, the Deputy and others mentioned the Finnish example. When the Finns were in very difficult financial circumstances in the 1990s they made a conscious decision, as a Government, to keep investing in research and development. We know where the Finns stand now and how much this has benefited them.

In addition to the 3% target, however, and member state consistency there is no way of measuring what we get for the 3% which is invested. As part of the strategy, therefore, I asked for the Commission services in the ECOFIN and so on, along with my own director general, to look at what options or elements we might include in an innovation indicator; in other words, an output indicator. They came up with a list of options. In order for those options to be as independent as possible we set up a top-level panel, in co-operation with the OECD, made up of economists and business people who work in innovation indicators, know this area inside out and know what does and does not work. At the moment they are in the process of sifting through what was proposed by the Commission, accepting or rejecting certain or all elements. They will have a proposal for me on an innovation indicator by the end of July. Obviously, I do not know whether that will be a single indicator or a composite one nor do I know what might be included. It will definitely be of benefit to member states in that they will be able not alone to measure what goes on but equally what comes out at the end of the day.

I was asked how Ireland's draw down compares with that of other member states. The participation rate for the EU as a whole is 22% and for Ireland 21.97%. We hope to see that maintained and, if at all possible, increased. The legacy of Lisbon targets works but these need to be precise and accompanied by binding measures. As I am sure members know, there will be binding measures in the research and innovation strategy in 2020. We will have to target the framework conditions that are necessary — social security, standards, regulation, venture capital, public procurement and patents.

I refer to public procurement which relates to the public sector. The United States has a body called Small Business Innovation Research, SBIR, wherein departments of Government are required to set aside a percentage of their spend every year to be spent on the public procurement of innovative products. This has been tried elsewhere in the EU and, to some extent, in the United Kingdom although I am not sure how successfully in the latter case. It has been tried in the Netherlands. We must see if we might get member states throughout the Union to consider using a facility like the SBIR. There is a unique opportunity for Ireland, or any member state in a large single market such as we have in Europe, to use public procurement. Let us say, for example, that Dublin City Council decided in the next ten years it wanted to change its buses to electric buses. If the council were to go to whatever company in Europe manufactures such buses and say that it needed X hundreds of them, that would be one thing. However, let us suppose Dublin could get together with several other cities from all the 27 member states to go collectively to such a manufacturer. Can members imagine the leverage that kind of public procurement would have? Those are the kinds of issues we are thinking about and making suggestions around. Public procurement is a very powerful leverage tool every member state has so let us work together to make it work for us.

I believe I dealt with the issue of transformation of inventions into commercial success and why that transformation may not occur when I said there are many blockages along the way that we need to break down.

Questions were asked about state regulation and monopolies and having a co-ordinated approach from research into those areas. Another arm of the Commission deals very effectively with state monopolies and state regulation. Some major changes are taking place in member states around the Union.

Deputy Creighton raised the targets issue, saying they were too broad and general and it was important that we did not fall into the same trap as we did with the Lisbon strategy. That is very important. I hope I dealt with that matter. The 3% target will be drilled deeply to find out the exact position of each member state. Officials from the research directorate general have gone to the authorities in each member state to examine where each state stands in regard to research and development, how they can improve and be helped. They are providing a diagnostic kit and tool box to the member states to show them what they need to do and to help them get to the 1% public investment target and to try to remove the blockages such that we can secure the 2% private money target in research and development as well.

I refer to the remarks on an open method of co-ordination and being short on specifics. The committee will see that the targets will be set very differently on this occasion and the strategy will have very robust monitoring built in, which is very important. The Member is correct to suggest that at least some member states did not step up to the plate. This time it will be done with each of the member states in a more systematic way.

I refer to the comments on my experience in the European Union and whether I believe it is a good thing to have one Commissioner per member state. I believe it is. I worked for ten years in the EU Court of Auditors. We progressed from having 15 to 25 and then 27 members. People said it would not and could not work and that meetings would continue for weeks on end. In fact, enlargement in the EU Court of Auditors and the European Commission has made us work in a smart way. It makes us do our business in a more co-ordinated way and it is important for citizens. Every citizen believes that having a voice at the table where decisions are made is very important. I support this idea and I believe it works very well. The Commission President, Mr. Barroso, ensures all polices and discussions take place in a very fair and open way and that everyone has a voice at the table.

Deputies Flynn and O'Rourke referred to science and society, one of the great challenges for me. How do we get young people to change their views on science, education and engineering such that they do not view them as tough subjects in which it is difficult to attain good marks and points? How do we change the whole culture? We need role models to do this. We must show young people that these are the areas where there will be jobs. Between now and 2020 if the strategy we have set out is implemented, there will be 700,000 jobs created in this area. Also, we must get third level institutions, second level schools and, in some cases, primary schools to consider what science means in a very different way.

Climate change has been mentioned by many people. This is one area where science and research has helped to change hearts and minds. The Commission and members states together must find a way to integrate science into society and encourage parents to consider what they might do to encourage their children to consider STEM, science, technology, engineering and mathematics, education. This is a problem everywhere. People I met in America made the same case. They referred to the difficulty of young people who consider science, technology, engineering and mathematics to be difficult and unattractive. Every member state appears to have this difficulty. In the Far East and China, they have put in place a major push and they are reaping success as a result.

FP7, the seventh framework programme, has been very important for this country and others given the facility to draw down funding, whether in third level institutions, research institutes or companies. It has been remarkably important. There is an interim evaluation of FP7 at the moment and the result of this will be available in the autumn. Next year, we will begin to examine the lessons to be learned from the interim evaluation and we will consider any recommendations for change that arise and what needs to done to make the programme more appropriate for the type of economic crises and the global challenges we face. All the policies in the Europe 2020 strategy, FP7 and the next framework programme, which it is hoped will have a more meaningful name, must feed into the way we respond to the global challenges of energy security, food security, health and an ageing population. It is important for us to be able to define our policies and policy instruments in a way that responds to these important issues.

Deputy Dooley raised the matter of Israel and Gaza. This is a very important issue. I watched a programme on television last night on the lessons that can be learned from what happened on this island of ours for what is happening in Gaza and Israel at the moment. Also, I read last weekend about the controversy over payments of funding from FP7 for Israel. Israel has been associated with the framework programmes since 1997. Nothing happens in this area unless it is consistent with standards laid down by the European Parliament and the European Council on how we should deliver funding. Between 2007 and 2013, Israel will contribute €440 million to the EU research and technological framework programme. It is one of 12 associate member countries outside the EU. All research activities under the framework programme, including security and aeronautics research, must be of a civil nature exclusively. No military research is funded and the European Commission anti-fraud office, OLAF, carries out regular on-the-spot checks in Israel and elsewhere to ensure EU funds are not being used for purposes other than their supposed purpose. It is important for me to state as much but it is also important for me to listen, to hear the concerns of the committee and to relay these back.

I refer to matters of education. A recent survey found that Irish graduates are the most sought after in Europe by employers. Another small but important example which may address the points made by Deputies O'Rourke and Flynn is Scientix, a website for teachers throughout Europe. It allows them to access innovative teaching methods. It was set up by the Commission and I understand a good deal of interest has been shown. There is also great potential here because people are interested in science. Recent Eurobarometer results published last week or the week before showed that 79% of people are interested in science compared with 65% interested in sport, an interesting piece of information which it is hoped will be very useful in future.

I refer to Government and jobs, issues raised by several people. We are not in the business of creating jobs but we are very much in the business of creating the framework for jobs. Even if only 2% of the public procurement was focused on innovative spending, including energy efficient housing, green vehicles and smart grids, it could fast forward innovation.

The Chairman and others referred to red tape and bureaucracy. I refer to three things that happened before and after my hearing. Researchers and scientists maintain if there were a boom in Europe such as that of recent years, they would never come to the Commission to seek funding. Why not? The reason is that the bureaucracy does not encourage anyone. It is not simply the case here, it is the same in the Commission as well. What are we doing about this? Three things have happened since February. First has been the publication of a Commission communication on simplification, a proposal now in inter-institutional discussion with the European Parliament and the European Council. Second has been the production of a proposal on the revision of financial regulation which is a legislative arm and will take longer. Third, recently the Commission published a communication on the tolerable risk of error. This will go to the European Parliament. It is an interesting concept. The EU Court of Auditors discussed this matter a long time ago when I was there. The Commission responded, then the Court of Auditors came back and now the Commission has issued its communication. The Parliament must discuss this carefully. There are two elements in the European Parliament. On the one hand there is the EU Parliament Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, which is very supportive of a different rate of error in the research area than other areas. On the other hand the budget control committee of the Parliament, which is like the Committee of Public Accounts here, is very conscious of errors and the increase in errors and so on. The Court of Auditors always said the less complicated something is, the fewer errors there will be. Obviously, the Parliament is working together. It has set up a working group with members that are common to both committees to see if it can find a way that they can all agree on what the tolerable risk of error should be and decide on a rate of error. This would be very important.

As I said in my opening remarks, I want to get scientists and researchers out of the offices and back into their laboratories. Researchers and scientists would not be insulted if I said they are normally not the best people for keeping paperwork up to date. They should not have to be. Large institutes can organise it very well because they can have a separate element within the institute that deals with all of the paper work and bureaucracy. Scientists and researchers need to be in the laboratories doing that work without being bothered with paperwork.

On the other hand, the money of European citizens is involved and as a Commission we have to make sure it is spent well and according to the rules set down for expenditure. We have to find a pathway through the tolerable risk of error communication in order that we can fit with what is happening in research and innovation in the future. There cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. It reduces the risk of errors but increases manoeuvrability for the researchers and scientists that we need so badly to come up with inventions that can finally make it to market.

Deputy Tuffy raised an issue I also intended to raise, namely, the response to education. She is quite right. The European Union funded institutes of technology democratised third level education. They were a huge success and are a model of long-term change. They have been very innovative in the manner in which they have done their business. Deputy Breen referred to NUIG, the University of Limerick and USIT working together to find ways of doing business together. One difficulty in all 27 member states — it is not confined to Ireland — is that every city and region wants to have a university which has every single faculty at the highest possible level. That is no longer sustainable, in particular when the European Union is going through an economic crisis.

We have to get third level institutions and research centres to work together in a way that UCD and Trinity college, DCU and UL and NUIG are here, as Deputy Breen said. We also need to encourage third level institutions and universities to work together with enterprise to become incubators for small companies which start at a very small level and can then grow. We want to help small industries to become medium-sized enterprises and become global players. We in Europe are not good at doing that. We have to put in place the kind of environment to which members referred in order for that to happen.

Structural Funds are a very important way of helping those member states or institutions that do not feel they have reached their full potential. Ireland will receive €375 million from the social fund for 2007-13. It is an important and fundamental instrument of funding.

I cannot recall who asked about the regions, it may have been Deputy Breen. We are examining the regions and Commissioner Hahn, who was the Minister for Research and Science in Austria is very interested in how the regions can feed into what is happening in the research and innovation strategy and how we do not concentrate solely on the large cities or countries. We are using INTERREG and Structural Funds of €85 million to build up infrastructure and give support to third level institutions, which is very important. On our doorstep there is joint involvement between Ireland and Northern Ireland bodies in project bids. It may be an issue the all-Ireland bodies could consider because it is an area where there is a lot of cross-Border co-operation.

I have dealt with most of the issues raised.

Chairman

I thank Ms Geoghegan-Quinn.

Deputy Beverley Flynn

I asked about a very specific part of a specific fund, which may have been unfair, but I ask Ms Geoghegan-Quinn to have somebody from her office answer my question.

Ms Maire Geoghegan-Quinn

Deputy Flynn referred to the NER fund, peatlands and wave and wind energy. We will revert to her because I do not know about it. The committee knows that under the Lisbon treaty there is a special provision for the national parliaments of member states. I would like to see a situation whereby this committee or other committees dealing with European issues would use it because other member states are doing it. It should use it even more and invite my fellow Commissioners or their senior officials from the Directorates General to come here to discuss issues such as that before us today. It would be very useful. The committee could also avail of the opportunity to come to us because it is important that we have a feeding of information to the Commission, that we can have a dialogue and that it has the dialogue with its fellow committees in other member states.

Deputy Seán Power

It will have to be when we are allowed to leave the country again.

Deputy Mary O’Rourke

One needs 40 receipts for the bus ticket one buys.

Chairman

I was going to refer to that. I thank Ms Geoghegan-Quinn for her invitation to this committee and others to visit Brussels and the institutions and meet the commissioners because, as she correctly identified, it is very important that the members of national parliaments have a clear knowledge of what affects other members in other national parliaments in order to get a better understanding of the situation. It would help to avoid issues where one country in European is at variance with the views expressed by others. It would give us more comprehensive knowledge of what is happening.

Deputy Power said it is a sin to travel. The media has criticisms but, as I have often said in the past in this committee and outside it, the responsibility rests with the members of the national parliaments to do their job. They should do whatever is required. It is very important. It also includes bringing the media along in order to let them know how the job is supposed to be done.

I thank Ms Geoghegan-Quinn. She has given a tour de force which reflects her experience in this House and the European institutions. We look forward to meeting with her again in the not too distant future. I thank the members for their participation.

The joint committee went into private session at 3.40 p.m. and adjourned at 3.50 p.m.until 9.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 7 July 2010.